Colgate, Danone Disclose Forest Footprints – But Many Firms Lag

Colgate-Palmolive, Groupe Danone, Gucci and Heinz are among the companies that last year disclosed their forest footprint for the first time – but the gap between the leaders of the forest risk commodity sectors and their peers is ever growing, according to the fourth annual Forest Footprint Disclosure Report.

Each year FFD asks the world’s largest companies to disclose their impact on forests based on their use of five commodities: soy, palm oil, timber and pulp, cattle products, and biofuels. Some 100 companies now voluntarily disclose their forest footprint, an increase of almost 15 percent compared to last year, FFD said. The organization also said it welcomed significant improvements in reporting from companies including Boots UK, Next, Kingspan Group and Whitbread Group.

But there is now an average 16 percent difference in scores between leaders and runners up across all business sectors. According to FFD this highlights that there is still “much work to be done,” and that many companies are trailing behind.

Two sectors – the utilities sector and the industrials, construction and auto sector – had significant variances and came in for particular criticism, as active corporate social responsibility in procurement appears not to be the norm in these industries, FFD said.

Dalhoff Larsen & Horneman lead the industrials, construction and autos sector for the third year running. The company said that its efforts this year focused on implementing an improved version of its due diligence system, which helps it manage its forest footprint better.

Drax Group lead the utilities sector. The company says that it is committed to an “extensive program” of increasing the amount of biomass it uses, and believes that any biomass used should be sustainably sourced.

One thought on “Colgate, Danone Disclose Forest Footprints – But Many Firms Lag”

Fantastic to see that more companies are disclosing this information. Though It seems like a lot of times, publicizing this information can be a double-edged sword: it makes the company more transparent but also opens them up to criticism.